Lying Bridges caught out

Written By: - Date published: 8:51 am, June 25th, 2013 - 67 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, workers' rights - Tags:

I expect to see Labour slam lying minister Simon Bridges in the House. His employment changes – a bad employers’ charter – are built on lies like this. Knock ’em down.

bridges lying empu infographic

67 comments on “Lying Bridges caught out ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1
    25 June 2013 at 9:18 am

    So he’s either deceitful or incompetent. I’m picking deceitful. I wonder how much it costs to bribe him.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      25 June 2013 at 9:21 am

      Has the MSM reported the lie as truth? They usually do if the source is a Tory.

      • North 1.1.1
        26 June 2013 at 7:29 am

        Or seeing the lie the MSM just ignores it. Lets it sit.

        This is the ShonKey “dance” the MSM deems acceptable.

        “Churlish or embarrassingly naive to linger…….move on.”

    • geoff 1.2
      25 June 2013 at 9:25 am

      That’s a bit unfair, OAK, isn’t it possible that Bridges is being deceitful AND incompetent?

  2. Lanthanide 2
    25 June 2013 at 9:26 am

    The funny thing is that I think this change would probably make people more likely to join the union, not less.

    Hmm, lets see, I can start out at $14/hr, or I can join the union and get paid $16/hr instead. Tough choice.

    • King Kong 2.1
      25 June 2013 at 9:29 am

      Very funny. Right now there is a collective “fuck” ringing out round the EPMU offices (that is supposing that any of them get in before 10am).

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1
        25 June 2013 at 9:39 am

        Lanth is right. This will increase union membership for precisely the reason she says.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1
          25 June 2013 at 10:03 am

          she?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1.1
            25 June 2013 at 10:06 am

            My mistake.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.1
              25 June 2013 at 10:29 am

              Not offended, just confused whether it was a typo or not.

              I myself don’t know the gender of most people on here, there are a few that I do, but most I don’t. So I avoid using gendered pronouns.

      • Daveo 2.1.2
        25 June 2013 at 12:14 pm

        Believe it or not, unions stand up for the interests of all workers, not just those who are members of the union. We all benefit from a high wage economy.

      • Rogue Trooper 2.1.3
        25 June 2013 at 2:00 pm

        unlike some, union reps are not on the imperial payroll KK

    • Te Reo Putake 2.2
      25 June 2013 at 10:30 am

      “Hmm, lets see, I can start out at $14/hr, or I can join the union and get paid $16/hr instead. Tough choice.”

      Problem is, Lanth, that there is the small question of the 90 day ‘fire at will’ provision. If the new worker chooses the union option, they will almost certainly lose the job.

      • King Kong 2.2.1
        25 June 2013 at 10:36 am

        “If the new worker chooses the union option, they will almost certainly lose the job”

        The hysterical, world is ending, opposition to the 90 day probation period has been tried and we all know how that bit the Union’s credibility on the arse. Surely you are not going there again?

        • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1.1
          25 June 2013 at 10:41 am

          Sorry, KK, but I operate in a world of facts. No worker is going to rock the boat in the first 90 days, so joining the union is not really an option except at sites that are a) fully unionised and b) have company employment policies not based on what was acceptable in 19th century.

          • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1.1
            25 June 2013 at 10:55 am

            So you can join the union on day 91?

            • Te Reo Putake 2.2.1.1.1.1
              25 June 2013 at 11:03 am

              Yep. And I understand that sign ups to unions reflect that situation exactly. Prior to the fire at will law, new workers would often join in the first few days (usually after the site delegate approaches them and asks them to join) or at the end of the 30 day period when they have to choose between the collective agreement or signing an individual agreement. Now, the process is often delayed until the 90 days is over and the threat of unfair dismissal is removed.

              • Lefty …
                25 June 2013 at 7:11 pm

                Most unions are interpreting the 90 day law as below;

                Usually a union collective agreement will not make provision for a 90 day probationary period so any worker who joins the union immediately, or is covered for the first 30 days by the existing law, will not be subject to the 90 day fire at will law, ie new workers on union sites are easily able to avoid being covered by the 90 day law.

                It is workers on non union sites that get done over by the 90 day probationary period.

                Any worker who has signed a 90 day probationary agreement on a union site in order to get the job can then tell the boss to shove it up his arse because it is not worth the paper it is written on, unless the union has been weak enough to allow 90 day provisions into their collective agreement.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  25 June 2013 at 8:02 pm

                  “Any worker who has signed a 90 day probationary agreement on a union site in order to get the job can then tell the boss to shove it up his arse because it is not worth the paper it is written on, unless the union has been weak enough to allow 90 day provisions into their collective agreement.”

                  Hmmm, not technically correct, lefty. The 90 day period is part of the job offer first and foremost. If the worker accepts the job on that basis it still applies unless the CEA specifically says otherwise.

  3. tc 3
    25 June 2013 at 9:31 am

    This joker is classic shonkyclone material, smile, BS and just repeat ad nauseum the slogans. Like jamie less ross a well trained lying nat boy, it is how they climb the tory pole.

  4. Yes 4
    25 June 2013 at 10:29 am

    Agree with EMPU statement – ok I know alot of you will fall off your chair with me agreeing with a union.

    However – if a staff member refuses to join the union – then the “no passing on” thingy law or rule or whatever you calls it discriminates and reduces that staff members ability to a higher package.

    What a blow to personal freedom

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1
      25 June 2013 at 10:37 am

      As usual, you’re wrong, Yes. If the staff member is not in the union, then they negotiate their own wages and conditions. Often, this takes the form of a slightly higher hourly rate, but reduced benefits. Bridges’ proposal removes freedom of choice for the worker and allows the employer, if they want to, to enforce minimum wages and conditions on a new worker. You’ll recognise that the worker in that situation has virtually no bargaining power. It’s take it or leave it and for the first 90 days, the threat of instant dismissal hangs over the head of the worker. It’s not negotiation, it’s bullying.

      • Yes 4.1.1
        25 June 2013 at 1:14 pm

        “slightly higher hourly rate but reduced benefits” example please?

        Does not belonging to a union and not paying weekly fees which reduces their hourly rate – take home pay a benefit?

        (“Yes” is never ever wrong)

        • Daveo 4.1.1.1
          25 June 2013 at 1:22 pm

          Yes you are. You’re wrong all the time, like with your constant ridiculous claim that union membership is 6% rather than 20%.

          • Yes 4.1.1.1.1
            25 June 2013 at 3:28 pm

            Daveo – only 6% of the working private sector belong to unions.
            11% in the working public sector

            Total 17%

            1.8M workers as per the Househhold survey numbers divide this by the number of union members DOL returns.

            pretty simple calculation

            Read my post correctly and even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and take your 20% – 80% is still an ABSOLUTE landslide thats 1,440,000 (thats 1.4M) dont give a dam about unions.

            Apology accepted and by the way – the biggest drop off in union membership started under labour.

            No need to apologies.

            • quartz 4.1.1.1.1.1
              25 June 2013 at 3:45 pm

              only 6% of the working private sector belong to unions.
              11% in the working public sector

              Lol maths!

              Better hope we don’t get to 60% in the private sector and 80% in the public sector. That’d be 140% !

              • Yes …
                25 June 2013 at 4:45 pm

                quartz grow up- you need to get things in perspective as you are a keyboard businessman. All on all fonts (typo intended)

                rough numbers to amke it simple

                350,000 union members equal 17

                • quartz …
                  25 June 2013 at 4:51 pm

                  How did you know I sell keyboards. B’dum Tssh! All I was pointing out my sensitive friend is that you clearly don’t need to have even a basic grasp of the principles of mathematics to be a successful businessman. Or to lie about being a successful businessman on a political blog.

                • framu …
                  25 June 2013 at 4:58 pm

                  jesus wept

                  “6% of the working private sector belong to unions.” is not the same thing as “union membership is 6%”

                  lets say weve got some oranges – some are in a box some arent – what % of oranges are oranges?

                  you need to grow up a little, and step down from your holier than though stunt pony

                  • Yes …
                    25 June 2013 at 6:28 pm

                    will if that is the case – why dont union declare that on their annual returns.

                    Hmmm let me think – i get fees from 1,000 members but…those three at the bus stop look like union people so I will file a return which reads 1,003

                    Hmmm didnt Peter Dunne have that same flawed logic?

                    • framu …
                      26 June 2013 at 8:08 am

                      what are you even going on about?

                      you said union membership is 6%

                      then you said union membership in the private sector was 6%

                      what does any of your failings at basic addition and counting have to do with union returns?

                      just answer the question – if 6 + 11 is 17 – how can the total be 6?

                      my mates 3 year old can spot the problem with that (sure she might not know the answer – but she at least knows its wrong)

                • McFlock …
                  25 June 2013 at 5:07 pm

                  here.

                  Knock yourself out. But bear in mind that not everyone in the labour force is a worker. Some of them are strictly managers. Others are a mix.

              • Daveo …
                25 June 2013 at 9:16 pm

                No, DoL figures show 20% of the working population is a union member. That’s DoL’a own figures, not your bullshit calculations.

        • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.2
          25 June 2013 at 1:46 pm

          “Does not belonging to a union and not paying weekly fees”

          Wow, you’ve learned something! On Sunday you thought it was the boss who paid the union fees.

          Union fees are about 20c per hour. Strangely, hundreds of thousands of kiwi workers think that’s value for money. I’m sure your workers would too, if you weren’t so keen to stop them having freedom of choice. How’d did they like their pay rise, by the way? You did tell why they were getting it didn’t you? That it was because of the union? As it so often is for other workers who aren’t actually members.

          • Yes 4.1.1.2.1
            25 June 2013 at 3:20 pm

            I said I pay the for the loss of production time so they can have union meetings – you said I was selfish because I would give them a couple hours of each month to have a talkfest with the union.

            You thought it was ok for staff to down tool and happy for a business to pay for the privilege.

            Why?

            • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.2.1.1
              25 June 2013 at 3:32 pm

              couple hours of each month

              4 hours a year, actually. And not always used to the max.

              • Yes …
                25 June 2013 at 6:25 pm

                yeah who pays – me

                you get money from fees – reduce their take home pay and I pay for 4 hours down time.

                who pays me – unions make money out of my workers…yep fantastic deal!

          • Yes 4.1.1.2.2
            25 June 2013 at 3:29 pm

            No I didn’t give them a pay rise – seriously and hand on heart – I gave them a %age of a shareholding – with lawyers as we speak – what a guy!

            • Rogue Trooper 4.1.1.2.2.1
              25 June 2013 at 3:44 pm

              Go hard!

            • the pigman 4.1.1.2.2.2
              25 June 2013 at 10:08 pm

              I gave them a %age of a shareholding – with lawyers as we speak – what a guy!

              Not very far down the path of self-awareness are you, buddy? Give it time and, in the irrefutable words of John Pilger:

              Just read… read.

            • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.2.2.3
              26 June 2013 at 5:13 pm

              How much are you paying the lawyers an hour to watch you contribute here? I post here on my own time. I don’t mix it with work, lawyers, cooking, or sex. Maybe I just can’t multi-task, but a lot of what you write just doesn’t ring true to my cynical old ears.

        • Rogue Trooper 4.1.1.3
          25 June 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Yes, you are very often mistaken.

  5. Zeroque 5
    25 June 2013 at 2:55 pm

    The 30 days rule which is currently in place ensures that for the first 30 days of an employees employment they get the terms that the union has negotiated in a collective agreement that covers the new employees type of work. This only happens in work places that have unions and that have a collective agreement that covers the type of work the new employee is employed to do.

    As has been said, they don’t become a union member but they do get the terms of the collective agreement. I doubt this arrangement helps the union recruit new members but it does ensure new workers are protected from having lesser terms and conditions imposed upon them when they are in the vulnerable position of wanting to accept a job.

    I’m not sure that scrapping the 30 day rule will improve union membership as suggested by some. Employers will probably continue to do what they do now when they want to woo people away from collective agreements and that is offer different terms in an individual employment agreement. As has been said this is often in the form of a higher hourly rate but typically there is a trade off in other areas such as perhaps lesser redundancy compensation entitlements or long service leave where it still exists.

    The problem is that combined, the proposed changes to the ERA will further weaken an Act that already isn’t delivering workers sufficient leverage to achieve a higher share of the proceeds from labour and capital.

  6. Yes 6
    25 June 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Unions make more out of union workers and make no capital contribution ..great deal …invest take a risk and union bludge off my workers and tell everyone I am a baddy.

    A rort.

    Why don’t unions start their own businesses?

    • Daveo 6.1
      25 June 2013 at 9:17 pm

      The union is your workers. The head office is just the hired help. Learn to understand that and you’ll understand a lot.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1
        25 June 2013 at 11:13 pm

        A very basic simple concept,. he’s got no chance.

        Yes, maligning your fellow citizens the way you do doesn’t make you a “baddy”, it makes you an asshole.

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      25 June 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Why don’t unions start their own businesses?

      And this is actually a very good idea.

    • framu 6.3
      26 June 2013 at 8:11 am

      they dont bludge of your workers you dolt – its a voluntary, democratic institution

      and you know what – how your staff feel about the union and whether they join or not is none of your damn business – you dont own them.

      but i dont think you actually have any workers – i think your rantings are all BS

  7. Darien Fenton 7
    26 June 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Used this today in debate around budget.

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/19484

  8. Yes 8
    27 June 2013 at 6:30 am

    Hi Darien – I watched the video – hmmm NZ Post.

    NZ Post job losses is nothing to do with the National Government – their post volumes are dropping.

    Why?

    Because people like the Labour Party are using new technology like – let me think – e-mails.

    So I suggest to reverse that the Labour Policy should be:

    Ban all social media and e-mail systems. This will halt the job losses at NZ Post. This will drive up postage volumes

  9. irascible 9
    28 June 2013 at 7:13 am

    On the Ross- Slater-Lusk-Bridges anti-union legislation proposals.
    http://theirasciblecurmudgeon.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/history-repeats-itself-in-unreasoned.html

Links to post